On Monday, 25 May 2020 09:06:17 UTC Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > Il 22/05/2020 18:59 Tony Finch <d...@dotat.at> ha scritto: > > > > I think despite what Paul H. said this is already covered in RFC 8499: > > Open resolver: A full-service resolver that accepts and processes > > > > queries from any (or nearly any) client. This is sometimes also > > called a "public resolver", although the term "public resolver" is > > used more with open resolvers that are meant to be open, as > > compared to the vast majority of open resolvers that are probably > > misconfigured to be open. Open resolvers are discussed in > > [RFC5358]. > > I think this definition is good - perhaps what we need is just to agree to > use "open resolver" instead of "public resolver". > > If you wanted to convey the nuance that it's not just open, but open on > purpose and meant to attract users from the entire Internet, you could add > "global": "open global resolver". > > Or, as an alternative, you could use the term "platform", which is > increasingly being used to identify Internet-wide global companies that > provide multiple consumer services. "Platform resolver" would also convey > the idea that these resolvers are going to be distributed and ubiquitously > available. "Cloud resolver" could have a similar meaning.
not that it will matter, but i find those names unprovocative and descriptive. > But, as for any terminological bikeshedding effort, you cannot force others > to use the "most correct" term, so it's possibly just a waste of time. i don't think we'll be able to improve on dagon's "more correct" suggestion: > I suggest: "distant resolver outside of the user's policy oversight". -- Paul _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
